List Azure resources using controlled read-only filters for resource type, name, and limit to support auditing, inventory, and inspection.
List Azure resources using controlled read-only filters. Use full Azure resource type when filtering, e.g. microsoft.compute/virtualmachines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| name_contains | No | ||
| resource_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering is controlled and read-only, but does not mention pagination, result volume, or scope. This is extra context but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the example is directly useful. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete: it does not cover result limits, name filtering semantics, or whether results are scoped to a subscription or tenant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains resource_type format with an example ('microsoft.compute/virtualmachines'), which is valuable, but leaves 'limit' and 'name_contains' undefined and does not explain default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List Azure resources' with read-only filters. This is clear, but it does not differentiate from siblings like list_public_ip_resources or list_resource_groups, which also list Azure resource subsets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_resource_groups. The example about using full Azure resource type is a parameter tip, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.